Greyhound bus station sold for $2.78 million

[Keith-N-Jax]

This may not be the site for it but downtown certainly needs more residents living downtown.

[jaxnyc79]

Hmmm.. in the name of K.i.S.S., my thoughts here:
The best use to repurpose the Greyhound building imho, a combination pharmacy/small grocery/little lunch counter type restaurant setup, and keep the videogames for a small arcade. I don't think we need more apartments or condos downtown, there's a lot of that already. 4 small businesses like that put into that spot could be really beneficial for the downtown, (plus possible opportunities for some smaller scale business people to get their big break in the thirsty downtown market?) but I know, I know, opinions are like @**h0**$
On a side note, I'm originally from a smaller midwestern city that once had a lot of GM business going on there. I basically watched my hometown wither, languish, and die. The very strip of that highway (sr9) that once held the General Motors plants is now masses of car sales lots, ironically.
Jacksonville has a lot of potential. I guess to sum it up, redevelopment just has to be done right for it to succeed. And the city made many mistakes in that department for years already. I hope they can get it right, but I'm not convinced that they have or will, just yet
Cheers to the new year and a better Jacksonville!

There's a lot of residential downtown already?  Am I still on a message thread about Jacksonville? 

[jaxrox]

Ok, well, it's being constructed anyway..guess it doesn't count if it isn't finished?

[jaxnyc79]

Ok, well, it's being constructed anyway..guess it doesn't count if it isn't finished?

Even with what's being constructed, I hope we see significantly more - preferably clustered in a compact area, to achieve some sort of critical mass that can draw other land uses and change the regional and visitor perceptions of downtown.

[vicupstate]

Some thoughts on the recent posts:

1) JAX attempted several times between the 1930's and COnsolidation to annex outlying areas and none were successful, IIRC, they all lost like 2-1 or worse.  There is no reason to believe that would have changed significantly had Consolidation not taken place, and piecemeal attempts had continued.

2) Consolidation did not cause DT JAX's decline and it is not preventing it's revivial.  The sooner we stop using that excuse and stop looking for a sugar daddy, the sooner revitialization will actually occur. 

4) I was in Columbus last April and while DT is not as vibrant as the adjacent Short North, it is pretty obvious that it is moving in the right direction. The Sports district is immediately adjacent to DT and is doing quite well also. In the very heart of DT, nearly all the buildings are offices only. But for that, I think it would be further along. Even so, it appears to be on an upward trajectory.   

5) The Greyhound Station may not be the best site for residential, but make no mistake, the current projects underway, though encouraging, are not sufficient to bring vibrancy. You need a 10,000 population to sustain significant retail development and JAX is WAY short of that. What DT population it does have is skewed to low income and senior citizens. That demographic doesn't bode well for retail.
       

           

[jaxnyc79]

Some thoughts on the recent posts:

1) JAX attempted several times between the 1930's and COnsolidation to annex outlying areas and none were successful, IIRC, they all lost like 2-1 or worse.  There is no reason to believe that would have changed significantly had Consolidation not taken place, and piecemeal attempts had continued.

2) Consolidation did not cause DT JAX's decline and it is not preventing it's revivial.  The sooner we stop using that excuse and stop looking for a sugar daddy, the sooner revitialization will actually occur. 

4) I was in Columbus last April and while DT is not as vibrant as the adjacent Short North, it is pretty obvious that it is moving in the right direction. The Sports district is immediately adjacent to DT and is doing quite well also. In the very heart of DT, nearly all the buildings are offices only. But for that, I think it would be further along. Even so, it appears to be on an upward trajectory.   

5) The Greyhound Station may not be the best site for residential, but make no mistake, the current projects underway, though encouraging, are not sufficient to bring vibrancy. You need a 10,000 population to sustain significant retail development and JAX is WAY short of that. What DT population it does have is skewed to low income and senior citizens. That demographic doesn't bode well for retail.
       

           

Whilst I agree with most of your points, I will take issue with #2.  A message thread that explores causality and factor analysis is not necessarily a "cop out" on downtown.  In fact, I think it's very reasonable that all consolidations during the age of the automobile have negatively impacted or at least inhibited the growth of American downtowns and urban cores (there have likely been overall societal benefits resulting from consolidations and sprawl as well).  We must know what we're up against before spending the city's precious Treasure - especially when much of that Treasure is funded by people living deep in the suburbs among the cul-de-sacs. 

Consolidations have been very tied in with sprawl development and the systematic provisioning of infrastructure to the urban fringe.  What makes it so grotesque in Jax, is that one can drive around inner-Arlington, and see that there are major gaps in development that are screaming for infill, and yet sprawl and the provisioning of infrastructure essentially leapfrogged those vast stretches before they were really even urbanized. 

I will agree that even if Consolidation had not occurred, state and federal transportation and land use bodies were still in a position to promote sprawl, to the detriment of downtown.  So yes, consolidation is not the only issue, but I think it's reasonable to discuss how it may be yet another in a long list of detractors from downtown.  While I don't think a reversal of consolidation is tenable, I think a re-evaluation of the city's governance structure may be in order.  Perhaps some sort of semi-autonomous sub-council can exist, focused on the needs and requirements of pre-consolidation Jacksonville, and comprised of people actually living in pre-consolidation Jacksonville (i.e. the core city).  Maybe elements of Beaches autonomy could be applied to pre-consolidation Jacksonville to more closely attend to core city interests.

But for the idea of a restructuring of city governance to occur, there must be an acknowledgement that a council looking after interests across the vastness of the county, cannot devote the intensity of attention required to revive a dismal and dying core city.

[vicupstate]

Consolidation for JAX is just an example of 'correlation not being causation'.

There are literally no examples besides JAX of what you describe. OKC, Charlotte, Nashville, Indy, Louisville, Lexington KY. There is only one datapoint for your theory. Jacksonville.

There is simply no causation or even correlation (except for JAX) between urban revitilization and city limit land mass.

In 1975 Charelston was 16 square miles and DT was as downtrodden as any city you can name. Today it is 112 square miles and its DT is without peer in the South for successful revitilization. The city limits expanded in tandem with DT revitilization. One really didn't affect the other.       

JAX has spent PLENTY of money on DT, since Consolidation. Money it would not have had without COnsolidation. The money has simply been ineffectively spent.

Consolidation has nothing to do with sprawl either. Devlopment goes whereever the utilities go. Consolidation may make it easier to expand those utilities perhaps. But whether provided by the central Metro city, a suburb, the urban county or a suburban county, the development goes wherever the water and sewer lines go.  There are many square miles in Duval that are not developed. They are in the city limits, but they don't have the infrastructure to develop subdivisions.     

[Tacachale]

Some thoughts on the recent posts:

1) JAX attempted several times between the 1930's and COnsolidation to annex outlying areas and none were successful, IIRC, they all lost like 2-1 or worse.  There is no reason to believe that would have changed significantly had Consolidation not taken place, and piecemeal attempts had continued.

The city successfully annexed many areas before 1932. Not sure how many failed annexations there were after that; there was a consolidation effort that did fail. Additionally, a much greater percentage of Duval County population lived in unincorporated areas by the 1960s, and literally every other city of size in Florida annexed outlying areas in the 1960s and after. Jacksonville would certainly be no different. Areas that certainly would have been annexed include the old and new airports, the seaport, and probably Arlington. Neighborhoods on the Westside and Southside that grew up after the 1930s would likely have been annexed, as that's what happened in Tampa, Orlando, and Miami.

2) Consolidation did not cause DT JAX's decline and it is not preventing it's revivial.  The sooner we stop using that excuse and stop looking for a sugar daddy, the sooner revitialization will actually occur. 

100% correct. Consolidation contributed some hurdles to downtown revitalization (like masking the scope of the decline) but it removed others (such as the failing budget). If consolidation was the main culprit, consolidated cities of a similar size like Nashville and Indianapolis wouldn't be doing well.

4) I was in Columbus last April and while DT is not as vibrant as the adjacent Short North, it is pretty obvious that it is moving in the right direction. The Sports district is immediately adjacent to DT and is doing quite well also. In the very heart of DT, nearly all the buildings are offices only. But for that, I think it would be further along. Even so, it appears to be on an upward trajectory.   

This has been my experience in Columbus as well. They're doing a lot right. The arena district, which is a lot of new construction, is pretty impressive for a city like that.

5) The Greyhound Station may not be the best site for residential, but make no mistake, the current projects underway, though encouraging, are not sufficient to bring vibrancy. You need a 10,000 population to sustain significant retail development and JAX is WAY short of that. What DT population it does have is skewed to low income and senior citizens. That demographic doesn't bode well for retail.
       

Not only that, but we need more people who live in the downtown core, not just outlying areas like Brooklyn and the Southbank. There are fewer than 2000 people living in the core area of downtown (even when LaVilla is included) so we're not close to seeing more neighborhood retail. This issue has been recognized for at least 25 years but we can't follow through on any plans to fix it.

[jaxnyc79]

Consolidation for JAX is just an example of 'correlation not being causation'.

There are literally no examples besides JAX of what you describe. OKC, Charlotte, Nashville, Indy, Louisville, Lexington KY. There is only one datapoint for your theory. Jacksonville.

There is simply no causation or even correlation (except for JAX) between urban revitilization and city limit land mass.

In 1975 Charelston was 16 square miles and DT was as downtrodden as any city you can name. Today it is 112 square miles and its DT is without peer in the South for successful revitilization. The city limits expanded in tandem with DT revitilization. One really didn't affect the other.       

JAX has spent PLENTY of money on DT, since Consolidation. Money it would not have had without COnsolidation. The money has simply been ineffectively spent.

Consolidation has nothing to do with sprawl either. Devlopment goes whereever the utilities go. Consolidation may make it easier to expand those utilities perhaps. But whether provided by the central Metro city, a suburb, the urban county or a suburban county, the development goes wherever the water and sewer lines go.  There are many square miles in Duval that are not developed. They are in the city limits, but they don't have the infrastructure to develop subdivisions.     

Not all consolidations are the same, so let's stick to city-county.  In the Central Iowa region, Polk County voters just considered a city-county consolidation in 2017, for the second time.  The measure failed.  A common issue cited by city residents, probably the most active special interest voting block, was that the suburbs would get too much control over city spending.  The interests of suburbs would start to take priority over those of the core city.  In looking into this matter, I was surprised to see just how many city-county consolidations have come up for a vote and been rejected in the 2000s.  You seem dismissive of the idea that city-county consolidations may be an obstacle to the fullness of a downtown's potential, but I'm arguing that it's an idea worth study and analysis.  Having said that, I will agree that certain core cities have been forced into consolidation due to economic forces.  If a core city has a regional asset (for example, an airport), it often must make significant investments in its upkeep and the muni bond issuance process is much more efficient if you can tie as much of the region as possible to the issuance. 

I still hold that the city's governance structure should be reconsidered.  I also contend that the city has wasted an opportunity of city-county consolidation.  Zoning and Land Use Restrictions could have done a lot to lesson the competition for downtown.

[Tacachale]

Some thoughts on the recent posts:

1) JAX attempted several times between the 1930's and COnsolidation to annex outlying areas and none were successful, IIRC, they all lost like 2-1 or worse.  There is no reason to believe that would have changed significantly had Consolidation not taken place, and piecemeal attempts had continued.

2) Consolidation did not cause DT JAX's decline and it is not preventing it's revivial.  The sooner we stop using that excuse and stop looking for a sugar daddy, the sooner revitialization will actually occur. 

4) I was in Columbus last April and while DT is not as vibrant as the adjacent Short North, it is pretty obvious that it is moving in the right direction. The Sports district is immediately adjacent to DT and is doing quite well also. In the very heart of DT, nearly all the buildings are offices only. But for that, I think it would be further along. Even so, it appears to be on an upward trajectory.   

5) The Greyhound Station may not be the best site for residential, but make no mistake, the current projects underway, though encouraging, are not sufficient to bring vibrancy. You need a 10,000 population to sustain significant retail development and JAX is WAY short of that. What DT population it does have is skewed to low income and senior citizens. That demographic doesn't bode well for retail.
       

           

Whilst I agree with most of your points, I will take issue with #2.  A message thread that explores causality and factor analysis is not necessarily a "cop out" on downtown.  In fact, I think it's very reasonable that all consolidations during the age of the automobile have negatively impacted or at least inhibited the growth of American downtowns and urban cores (there have likely been overall societal benefits resulting from consolidations and sprawl as well).  We must know what we're up against before spending the city's precious Treasure - especially when much of that Treasure is funded by people living deep in the suburbs among the cul-de-sacs. 

Consolidations have been very tied in with sprawl development and the systematic provisioning of infrastructure to the urban fringe.  What makes it so grotesque in Jax, is that one can drive around inner-Arlington, and see that there are major gaps in development that are screaming for infill, and yet sprawl and the provisioning of infrastructure essentially leapfrogged those vast stretches before they were really even urbanized. 

I will agree that even if Consolidation had not occurred, state and federal transportation and land use bodies were still in a position to promote sprawl, to the detriment of downtown.  So yes, consolidation is not the only issue, but I think it's reasonable to discuss how it may be yet another in a long list of detractors from downtown.  While I don't think a reversal of consolidation is tenable, I think a re-evaluation of the city's governance structure may be in order.  Perhaps some sort of semi-autonomous sub-council can exist, focused on the needs and requirements of pre-consolidation Jacksonville, and comprised of people actually living in pre-consolidation Jacksonville (i.e. the core city).  Maybe elements of Beaches autonomy could be applied to pre-consolidation Jacksonville to more closely attend to core city interests.

But for the idea of a restructuring of city governance to occur, there must be an acknowledgement that a council looking after interests across the vastness of the county, cannot devote the intensity of attention required to revive a dismal and dying core city.

Some of what you say could work, but there's no reason a consolidated government can't revive Downtown. It works in cities like Nashville and Indianapolis, and in other large land area cities like OKC - all of which are peers. And again, when we've had governments that actually focus on downtown and build off of previous plans, we've seen progress downtown. The problem has been that the continuity gets abandoned almost as often as we elect a new mayor.

Consolidation for JAX is just an example of 'correlation not being causation'.

There are literally no examples besides JAX of what you describe. OKC, Charlotte, Nashville, Indy, Louisville, Lexington KY. There is only one datapoint for your theory. Jacksonville.

There is simply no causation or even correlation (except for JAX) between urban revitilization and city limit land mass.

In 1975 Charelston was 16 square miles and DT was as downtrodden as any city you can name. Today it is 112 square miles and its DT is without peer in the South for successful revitilization. The city limits expanded in tandem with DT revitilization. One really didn't affect the other.       

JAX has spent PLENTY of money on DT, since Consolidation. Money it would not have had without COnsolidation. The money has simply been ineffectively spent.

Consolidation has nothing to do with sprawl either. Devlopment goes whereever the utilities go. Consolidation may make it easier to expand those utilities perhaps. But whether provided by the central Metro city, a suburb, the urban county or a suburban county, the development goes wherever the water and sewer lines go.  There are many square miles in Duval that are not developed. They are in the city limits, but they don't have the infrastructure to develop subdivisions.     

Not all consolidations are the same, so let's stick to city-county.  In the Central Iowa region, Polk County voters just considered a city-county consolidation in 2017, for the second time.  The measure failed.  A common issue cited by city residents, probably the most active special interest voting block, was that the suburbs would get too much control over city spending.  The interests of suburbs would start to take priority over those of the core city.  In looking into this matter, I was surprised to see just how many city-county consolidations have come up for a vote and been rejected in the 2000s.  You seem dismissive of the idea that city-county consolidations may be an obstacle to the fullness of a downtown's potential, but I'm arguing that it's an idea worth study and analysis.

It has been studied, relatively extensively. We just went through a consolidation review a few years ago. The conclusion is as we're saying, that there were downsides to consolidation vis a vis downtown revitalization, but it isn't the only or main factor, and there were upsides as well. Not sure what actionable info further study would reveal that we don't already know.

[Tacachale]

A question was asked about the possibility that Jacksonville being a consolidated city/county was negatively affecting the downtown.  I believe it is and for several reasons, but the biggest one that I see is: if Jacksonville were losing major developments such as the SJTC to the suburbs (just using this development as an example) and the city itself was getting little development, you better believe you'd be seeing someone downtown raising holy hell and getting real focused, real quickly.  As it is now, it's ALL Jacksonville, so who cares?  There is no incentive to build downtown; all the money collected is going into our coffers, so who cares?

We have indeed seen all the old pictures of the vibrant downtown that existed in the 50's and 60's.  Those existed almost everywhere.  Then, the suburbs exploded, which caused the downtowns to decay everywhere.  Once it became obvious to these core cities that something needed to be done to win the battle over the suburbs (80's-90's), things began to happen.  This is why so many of them have made that giant comeback, many of which have been noted on this site in great detail.  But, not here in Jax.  Why not?  See above paragraph.

Two things would have happened if Jax did not consolidate with Duval County.

1. It would have annexed as much suburban growth as possible (ex. Charlotte, Orlando, Tampa, Phoenix, Houston, etc.).

2. It would have stagnated  and lost economic growth to incorporated suburbs (ex. Detroit, Birmingham, Cincinnati, St. Louis, etc.). Either way, suburban growth would have occurred, along with urban decline following WW2. That growth pattern was largely driven by federal and state policies moreso than local.

Either way, DT was going to go through a period of decline. Even NYC couldn't avoid it. Tacachale basically nails why revitalization hasn't kept up with other communities since the 1990s. I'll add that even in the 1990s we made some mistakes. Losing LaVilla and not strategically clustering investment being two major mistakes. Now the interest is back but clustering still seems to be an afterthought.

Clustering is a perfect example of the lack of followthrough. It's one of my old man's Downtown pet peeves. It's something they figured out 20+ years ago, but it wasn't given priority by the succeeding administrations, and doesn't appear to be much of a concern with (most of) the current proposals.

[jaxnyc79]

Some thoughts on the recent posts:

1) JAX attempted several times between the 1930's and COnsolidation to annex outlying areas and none were successful, IIRC, they all lost like 2-1 or worse.  There is no reason to believe that would have changed significantly had Consolidation not taken place, and piecemeal attempts had continued.

2) Consolidation did not cause DT JAX's decline and it is not preventing it's revivial.  The sooner we stop using that excuse and stop looking for a sugar daddy, the sooner revitialization will actually occur. 

4) I was in Columbus last April and while DT is not as vibrant as the adjacent Short North, it is pretty obvious that it is moving in the right direction. The Sports district is immediately adjacent to DT and is doing quite well also. In the very heart of DT, nearly all the buildings are offices only. But for that, I think it would be further along. Even so, it appears to be on an upward trajectory.   

5) The Greyhound Station may not be the best site for residential, but make no mistake, the current projects underway, though encouraging, are not sufficient to bring vibrancy. You need a 10,000 population to sustain significant retail development and JAX is WAY short of that. What DT population it does have is skewed to low income and senior citizens. That demographic doesn't bode well for retail.
       

           

Whilst I agree with most of your points, I will take issue with #2.  A message thread that explores causality and factor analysis is not necessarily a "cop out" on downtown.  In fact, I think it's very reasonable that all consolidations during the age of the automobile have negatively impacted or at least inhibited the growth of American downtowns and urban cores (there have likely been overall societal benefits resulting from consolidations and sprawl as well).  We must know what we're up against before spending the city's precious Treasure - especially when much of that Treasure is funded by people living deep in the suburbs among the cul-de-sacs. 

Consolidations have been very tied in with sprawl development and the systematic provisioning of infrastructure to the urban fringe.  What makes it so grotesque in Jax, is that one can drive around inner-Arlington, and see that there are major gaps in development that are screaming for infill, and yet sprawl and the provisioning of infrastructure essentially leapfrogged those vast stretches before they were really even urbanized. 

I will agree that even if Consolidation had not occurred, state and federal transportation and land use bodies were still in a position to promote sprawl, to the detriment of downtown.  So yes, consolidation is not the only issue, but I think it's reasonable to discuss how it may be yet another in a long list of detractors from downtown.  While I don't think a reversal of consolidation is tenable, I think a re-evaluation of the city's governance structure may be in order.  Perhaps some sort of semi-autonomous sub-council can exist, focused on the needs and requirements of pre-consolidation Jacksonville, and comprised of people actually living in pre-consolidation Jacksonville (i.e. the core city).  Maybe elements of Beaches autonomy could be applied to pre-consolidation Jacksonville to more closely attend to core city interests.

But for the idea of a restructuring of city governance to occur, there must be an acknowledgement that a council looking after interests across the vastness of the county, cannot devote the intensity of attention required to revive a dismal and dying core city.

Some of what you say could work, but there's no reason a consolidated government can't revive Downtown. It works in cities like Nashville and Indianapolis, and in other large land area cities like OKC - all of which are peers. And again, when we've had governments that actually focus on downtown and build off of previous plans, we've seen progress downtown. The problem has been that the continuity gets abandoned almost as often as we elect a new mayor.

Consolidation for JAX is just an example of 'correlation not being causation'.

There are literally no examples besides JAX of what you describe. OKC, Charlotte, Nashville, Indy, Louisville, Lexington KY. There is only one datapoint for your theory. Jacksonville.

There is simply no causation or even correlation (except for JAX) between urban revitilization and city limit land mass.

In 1975 Charelston was 16 square miles and DT was as downtrodden as any city you can name. Today it is 112 square miles and its DT is without peer in the South for successful revitilization. The city limits expanded in tandem with DT revitilization. One really didn't affect the other.       

JAX has spent PLENTY of money on DT, since Consolidation. Money it would not have had without COnsolidation. The money has simply been ineffectively spent.

Consolidation has nothing to do with sprawl either. Devlopment goes whereever the utilities go. Consolidation may make it easier to expand those utilities perhaps. But whether provided by the central Metro city, a suburb, the urban county or a suburban county, the development goes wherever the water and sewer lines go.  There are many square miles in Duval that are not developed. They are in the city limits, but they don't have the infrastructure to develop subdivisions.     

Not all consolidations are the same, so let's stick to city-county.  In the Central Iowa region, Polk County voters just considered a city-county consolidation in 2017, for the second time.  The measure failed.  A common issue cited by city residents, probably the most active special interest voting block, was that the suburbs would get too much control over city spending.  The interests of suburbs would start to take priority over those of the core city.  In looking into this matter, I was surprised to see just how many city-county consolidations have come up for a vote and been rejected in the 2000s.  You seem dismissive of the idea that city-county consolidations may be an obstacle to the fullness of a downtown's potential, but I'm arguing that it's an idea worth study and analysis.

It has been studied, relatively extensively. We just went through a consolidation review a few years ago. The conclusion is as we're saying, that there were downsides to consolidation vis a vis downtown revitalization, but it isn't the only or main factor, and there were upsides as well. Not sure what actionable info further study would reveal that we don't already know.

According to my research, it's still very much a debate globally.  At any rate, I'm putting up food for thought.  Your stance on this is well noted.  And I also proposed a solution to address the downsides of consolidation.  You cite Nashville and OKC.  Yes, anything is better than downtown Jax and Jax has a lot to learn from them, but would you call them "Core City Ideals?"  Do their downtowns have pre-WWII prominence and centrality of regional wealth and prosperity?

[thelakelander]

Nashville and OKC are two of the most successful US DT revitalization examples out there, consolidation or not. Neither was significantly large before WW2 to begin with, so they won't be a Philly, Boston or San Francisco but their scale is applicable to Jax.

[Tacachale]

Nashville and OKC are two of the most successful US DT revitalization examples out there, consolidation or not. Neither was significantly large before WW2 to begin with, so they won't be a Philly, Boston or San Francisco but they're scale is applicable to Jax.

This. Both are major success stories in terms of downtown revitalization, and both are peers to Jacksonville. I'd consider them better examples to follow than, say, Orlando. OKC especially, as they've totally turned around over the last 30 years.

[vicupstate]

As far as annexation into the old Jacksonville, there is one very big factor that is left out of the comparison to Tampa, and other FL cities.
Prior to Consolidation JAX had a very byzantine, ineffecient, ineffective and corrupt government. There were effectively TWO City Council type legislative boards. Consolidation did away with most of those issues but in the absence of that, why would anyone vote to become a part of that?       

I have never heard of the same problems in Tampa, Orlando, St. Pete.  I have heard similar about Miami in past decades and that is probably a big reason why the suburbs did their own incorporations to avoid annexation to Miami.   

I am pretty sure there were at least two, if not three, major anenxations that failed between 1932 and 1968. I can verify that at home tonight.   

While it is certainly possible some expansion of the city's limits might have happened at some point, I doubt it would be at the level being assumed in this discussion.